h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I have only had limited experience with legal mediation but have found it to be a complete farce. As described in the article, it is beneficial for the legal system for parties to resolve their disputes via mediation rather than in court. When one party before a court suggests mediation, it is commonly found that the presiding magistrate will all but bow to this party and commend them highly, regardless of the dispute at hand, obvious fault, discovery of a murder weapon etc. Should the other party be foolish enought to indicate that they do not believe that mediation will be beneficial for the situation, they will undoubtedly be shunned and made to feel that the courts decision in the case will be influenced by such a stand. So both parties inevitably agree to attend mediation. Once a mediation session is attended, whether subsequent sessions are required or not, both parties will so loose sight of the original reason for thier attendance and will only be arguing point for point rather that solving the original problem - and no flow diagrams will ever be able to help this diversion. Therefore, the dispute does not get solved, tension continues,future problems are not averted, the party at fault in the original dispute is not punished and total anarchy results. Well, okay, maybe not total anarchy, but at least it is proven that legal mediation is a bunch of hogs wallop.

Granted, with a court-ordered mediation one is more likely to encounter a party who is not happy being there. But that does not mean that nothing can ever be done when parties have been referred to mediation by the court.

I don't think that parties are likely to lose sight of the reason for the mediation just because it is court ordered. Parties are just as likely to be happy to get the chance to work out their problem at the mediation instead of having to waste much time and money in litigation. Of course, this is also going to depend on the mediator -- it's his or her job to see that the parties don't fall into bickering. If a party refuses to listen to the other, the mediator should call for a caucus with that party to let it vent. If the parties refuse to talk, the mediator should end the mediation.

Also, it should be remembered that punishment is virtually never an end for mediation. The mediator obviously doesn't have the authority to impose punishment. It's unlikely that a court would refer a matter to mediation if punishment is the only solution.